> If science is indeed mute on the subject of God, please do explain> to us what they are getting so hot under the collar about?> > We have seen already where science has chosen to stop at zero, while> the religious have merely gone beyond that to invoke a whole cosmology> of their own quite literally right out of the void.> > For heaven's sake, I ask you just where is the conflict? One occupies> quite a different domain from the other, with as I see it no overlap> whatsoever. Without ignoring the fact that any individual is quite> free to go from one domain to the other and back again, as in the> case cited here quite a long time long ago now of the scientist who> reads the sermon in church on Sunday.

I think that much of this hostility must stem no doubt in part from an
effort to keep the two realms separate. Religion has been quite fickle
with regards to scientific inquiry, embracing it when it provides
evidence, whether real or imagined, of the validity of religious teaching,
and trouncing it when it fundamentally contradicts religious thought. In
reality, science and religion are truly separate realms, each answering
fundamentally different questions. But then why the hostility? Because
they don't OPERATE in separate realms. Still, this might not be quite so
much a problem if they both hadn't come to separate conclusions in several
key areas, namely the beginning of time and the origins of life on earth.
Few object when science produces better medicines or faster computers, but
when science proclaims that the universe is order by chance rather than
order by design, well that's treading on the feet of religion isn't it?
And science can't simply ignore the religious realm. After all, many of
the fundamentalist right have considerable influence on where resources
can be spent and on what can or cannot be taught in public schools.
Separate spheres, common resources, this is battle cry for zealots on both
sides.

Yasha Hartberg
Texas A&M University
"The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's." Andy Warhol